Just finished watching it with a friend and the only good thing about the movie was that we had fun laughing at how bad it was.
This must be the most overrated movie on IMDB.
Can someone please explain what's so good about it that it deserves 7.6. Obviously many people have given it a high rating, so there must be someone who can give me a good explanation.
Ditto.
By half-way, the plot, acting and script had become so laughable that my wife and I started wondering whether it was building-up for a UFO landing or something.
The political stuff (regardless of where one lies on the political scale) was juvenile to say the least.
Absolutely dreadful. Worst film I've seen since Boxing Helena.
I liked the movie quite a bit. Gave it an "8." Ebert and Roeper gave it "Two Thumbs Up." Jeffrey Lyons and Alison Bailes on "Reel Talk" both strongly recommended it. Perhaps you two are the single smartest people on the planet, and the movie is beneath you. If so, ask for a refund and start solving the planet's crises yesterday. I beg you.
shareI wasn't asking WHO liked it but WHY do people like it.
The actors aren't good and the script is really embarrassing. I was just waiting for it to get better but it kept getting worse.
I believe that the high ratings are given by americans who maybe don't care if it's a good movie as long as there is a good message.
Your last sentence is so incredibly well thought out. Again, take your superior intellect off these waste-of-time boards and start saving the planet. Please.
shareBut I still haven't got any answers to my question. Please tell me what is so good about this movie. Is it the actors, the script, the plot or just the message?
Not trying to act intelligent. Just trying to get a good answer.
[deleted]
I didn't write much about why I don't like it because it's not what the topic is about, but if you read through the thread again you'll see that I mention the poor acting and the embarrassing script. My personal favorite is when Terry tells Gabe that he went through his apartment. No reason for him to say that. It was hilarious and at that point we realized that it wouldn't get any better :)
share[deleted]
Poor acting?!?!? I think NOT!!
shareI think the main reason is the old statement that everybody has their own opinions, own likes and dislikes. Some people may enjoy the movie, and that's fine.
Some people may hate the movie, and that's fine as well. We all differ from what we judge and enjoy in a movie. I hope this might shed some light on it.
Just because a movie is rated high or low doesn't mean you should like or dislike it; just go with what you think.
I got this today and watched and I'm stunned. This was terrible! The script was laughable at best (I laughed most way through the last half once I realized it was a joke). Out of now where Gabe starts rambling off about what if he is a terrorist, would it be so bad?! hahah what?! Why would he start going off on that?! I can see the point of the movie, I can see what they were trying to do but they went about it with such a heavy hand it was just clumsy at the best of times. I thought for a moment they were actually going to make him a terrorist, that would have been great for the laughter factor at least...
shareI agree with your post 100%. Those were my thoughts exactly.
shareI laughed my way thru the movie, too. It wasn't that the acting was bad, but it was because the protagonist was so stupid. Throughout the "situation" I hoped the wife would divorce him after everything was over for his stupidity. Near the end, I kept chanting "suicideeee". I may sound morbid, but my theory is that dumbass characters in movies deserve to die. I can't believe I wasted 2 hours watching this douchebag making a fool of himself.
shareI thought the acting was just fine. I did, though, find the script lacking. Never believed for a moment that an FBI agent would say and act the way he did. Nor did I buy into Krause's behaviorial leaps. His wife's lighting in and out of the story was also a little too convenient, IMO. Also thought the twist at the end was telegraphed. Some of the intial scenes, i.e. with the bank teller were well done. Not tight enough, or intelligent enough for this kind of flick.
share"My personal favorite is when Terry tells Gabe that he went through his apartment. No reason for him to say that. It was hilarious..."
Terry told Gabe that because he thought Gabe already knew...Gabe was there when Terry went running out of the closet. And Terry thought Gabe had invaded his apt to "get even."
He had plenty of reason to say it, he wants Gabe to "confess" about the bank envelopes and the chem equipment, which he only knows about through the apt invasion, and which prove nothing on their own. Terry is in the process of synthesizing a paranoid fantasy that overlays "the real world." We see that process completed at the end, where Terry imagines a news report about poisoned envelopes while watching a TV golf match.
Makes perfect sense.
I liked it because there are so few films that illuminate the care and feeding of a psychosis as well.
@jendrake9:
wth are you going on about? he's just asking people why they liked the film. if you can't give a mature response, please get off this board until you grow up a little.
I guess you might have a point. The mainstream US media is notoriously lacking in terms of political sophistication, so I guess perhaps some Americans might consider this embarrassing, juvenile banality in some sense challenging.
I don't know whether to find it funny or depressing.
I find it quite funny :)
I really can't understand how the majority can give this movie a high rating.
"I wasn't asking WHO liked it but WHY do people like it.
The actors aren't good and the script is really embarrassing. I was just waiting for it to get better but it kept getting worse. "
Im sorry but you are just like the guy in the movie, the last scene. Just because you didnt like the movie, it just gotto suck right? It just cant be true that some people out there actually liked the movie. While im writting this its at 6.8/10. It really isnt a bad movie. Not gonna say that i liked it, but it was somewhat realistic and how easy it can be for a person under the right circumstances to become paranoid.
Not sure what you wanted out of the movie to be honest. Maybe you wanted the middle-eastern guy to be a terrorist. You got dissapointed and angry because he wasnt?
Ive seen way better movies, but the message this movie had was very clear. The acting was good enough to tell the story.
I didn't say that everyone should think it sucks. The only request I had was that I wanted people to tell me what was so good about the movie.
shareThe guy was a terrorist. Did you not see then end?
shareIndividuals smarter than the four you cite do happen to exist.
--------------
***You must be old and wrinkled to have that type of reaction. - Liana***
And I'm sure three of them are you, championrabbit, and herr ensam.
Unfortunately, this is not a conversation about intelligence. It's about pomposity. There is nothing worse than going to a movie and having your experience ruined by some attention-starved, 117 I.Q. wannabe chuckling at inappropriate moments to let the audience know how far superior he is to what is on the screen and those around him. Championrabbit and herr ensam have revealed themselves as these types of audience members and deserve to know that others aren't amused by them.
If you didn't like the movie, fine. I did. As did others. It happens everyday. Get over it. Shut up in the theater or rent DVD's at home.
And, please, for your own good, avoid any future generalized, obvious, knee-jerk Euro-responses about how Americans have inferior media, judgement skills, or artistic sensibilities. You paint yourself the same as that you criticize.
wow, you got ALL THAT from a few short and harmless comments?
are you psychic or do you just enjoy making an ass of yourself by speculating and drawing up elaborate and absurd scenarios about other people's lives?
seriously, you might wanna try not acting like a douche. no one was attacking you. they just found this film to be poorly made. these boards are here for people to discuss differing opinions. if you can't handle that, then go somewhere else.
I don't understand why you're trying to figure out what kind of people we are. The only reason why I started this thread was because I think the movie is really bad and wanted to find out why it has such a high rating.
I haven't gotten any answers accept for jendrake9 who seems to be really upset with me because I criticize the movie, but he/she doesn't have any answers to my question.
I thought the movie was excellent, and I rated it a 10. Here's why:
I love the message in the movie. America really needs a movie like this to bring about intellegient discussion about the problems in our country right now. This movie opens the door for that. There's too much complacency in America and thank God at least this one movie is willing to address that (besides Michael Moore, anyway!).
I thought the story was well written and nice and compact. It didn't go on longer than it should have. It stuck to the point and that was it.
I loved the vague ending - again - opens the door to discussion and let's the audience come up with their own reasoning.
All of the actors were absolutely amazing and
I'm a huge Peter Krause fan and have been waiting for this movie to come out since Aug/Sept 2005. And let me tell you - I was not disappointed at all.
If you don't like the movie - well that's your opinion. But people like me do like it, and that's just the way it is. My only complaint is that it did not get a wider release. People NEEDED to see this movie, and it was practically ignored overall - Another example of the complacency and the tendency to ignore the huge problems in America today.
Finally someone gives me an answer :)
I'm not gonna debate with you because you've probably guessed already that I gave it 1.
Did it make top 20 in the box office when it was released in the US?
I'm sure it did not hit the top 20, but to be honest, most movies that make the top 20 don't interest me anyway. I'm the type of person who like to go against the grain and not accept the norm.
shareThat is indeed an exceedingly mediocre movie. Hearing one of Bush's speeches at the very end of it only stressed the overall ridicule of it... Too bad, I quite liked "The Lost Room" and thought the main actor could lift that up. Eventually, not, the movie had coherency in its mediocrity.
shareThere is more and more voter fraud on IMDB for low budget and limited release films every day. It is getting pretty sad, having to check multiple reviews and the forums for these movies to know if they are actually watchable. IMDB is a great resource but a few bad apples bring it all down a peg.
share Most movies that make the top 20 are commercially viable drivel. You wanna watch a cgi fish, go nuts. Frankly the best movies of our time didn't even get a US theatrical release. I gave this movie a 9, only because at times it was irritating. They had the balls to go against what george w labels patriotic, which is essentially commercial suicide, see dixie chicks. I wasn't even aware that this movie was released in theaters. It's almost art housey in it's portrayal of propoganda paranoia. I would venture that most people who don't like this movie, citing technical issues like figure skating judges are simply not ready and/or able to see a perspective which differs from the one which he/she holds onto for dear life of delusion.
P.S. Does a film have to have a big hollywood budget for actors, writers etc and appeal to the masses more than other films to be good?
P.P.S. The acting was much better than most films period. You wanna a top 20 movie that's more your speed? go check out the latest american pie franchise, str8 to dvd installment. maybe put the gold fish next to the tv and make your own little heaven.
"The only reason why I started this thread was because I think the movie is really bad and wanted to find out why it has such a high rating."
Perhaps it was not WHAT you asked, but HOW you asked it.
-The excessive exclamation points and question marks in the subject.
-"The only good thing about the movie was laughing at how bad it was" (and by implication, laughing at those who liked it.)
-"...must be the most overrated movie on IMDB." (do you REALLY think so?)
Not only is it clear that you thought the movie was really bad, but the way you phrased your message carries with it the implication that "this movie is bad, bad, bad. In fact, it's so bad that if you liked it you must be dumb or there must be something wrong with you, so you better justify your opinion." You'll notice that you demanded that someone explain their opinion to you without having made any effort to explain yours, as though your word was law. So you may think you only "wanted to find out why it had a high rating," but someone who DID like the film may have seen your post as a personal attack as well. Think of this analogy:
"Your girlfriend/boyfriend is ugly!!!!!! The only thing good about her is that it's fun to laugh about how ugly she is. She must be the most hideous person I've ever seen. What could you possibly see in her?????"
Would you get defensive? Of course you would--someone just slammed your taste. It probably wouldn't even make a difference if the person said "Hey, I'm just asking for the reasons for your opinion," would it?
As a film professor, I can say that if anyone ever expressed their opinion about a film we watched in class that way, that student would be staying after class. (In fact, I've done that.)
You probably didn't mean it to sound that way, but for next time, you might look at this way of making the same statement:
I didn't think the movie deserved the rating it has on IMDB because (fill in reasons here.) Could someone out there who gave it a positive rating share their reasoning with me?
Much nicer, I think. Of course you could keep it as is, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for an honest, legitimate answer because you're likely to get either no answer, or a "you suck and your opinion sucks" defensive answer. What else can you expect? "You're right--the movie completely sucks rocks and I have no taste at all, but let me tell you just what I liked about it, even though I'll probably look stupid doing it now."
As a 'film professor', you presumably believe in some sort of objective truth regarding a film's substance, otherwise 'film professor' = 'person who remembers facts' about films, yes?
The original question can be transposed thusly: 'I believe this film to fail as a piece of art so fundamentally that I cannot take seriously the views of those who would view it as artistically valid. Please share opinions which might explain the views of those who do not consider this film to be a complete artistic failure'.
This is (IMO) a perfectly acceptable question.
Of course, if you consider all film-related opinions to be pure subjectivity, you will not consider the question to be valid, although I would suggest that it also negates your 'film professor's' status as anything other than a person who has watched too many films.
Of course, if you consider all film-related opinions to be pure subjectivity, you will not consider the question to be valid, although I would suggest that it also negates your 'film professor's' status as anything other than a person who has watched too many films.
I really don't know what to say. But i feel like I should defend myself or something :)
I had just seen the movie and really thought it was bad. I'd never posted anything on IMDB before and believed that I would get more answers if I used the phrasing that I did.
There was never any intention to insult anyone, so I'm sorry if you take it personally that I didn't like it.
I really can't believe why some people take it so seriously. It's just a movie... and not even a good one :)
I really don't know what to say. But i feel like I should defend myself or something :)
I had just seen the movie and really thought it was bad. I'd never posted anything on IMDB before and believed that I would get more answers if I used the phrasing that I did.
There was never any intention to insult anyone, so I'm sorry if you take it personally that I didn't like it.
I really can't believe why some people take it so seriously. It's just a movie... and not even a good one :)
You're the first person who talks about the fact that people takes it personally that I disliked the movie.
Honestly I think that you overreact, but I'm not gonna argue with you.
This is a forum for expressing your opinions about movies. If people like to read posts and leave comments about them then that's ok with me, as long as they have a valid reason for doing so.
And if my phrasing is disturbing, the reason could be that I'm not american like the majority here :)
You watch Jeffrey Lyons?
HAHAHA
herr ensam= village idiot
sorry it wasn't as cool as Redline F&F lol
this was a really well acted gripping suspense thriller
I normally rip movies apart in my reviews but I gave this one thumbs way up
much better than the majority of the garbage in the theaters right now
not a 10 but definitely deserves 7.6-8 ;)
[deleted]
I have not seen it, but i think that this thread was all pretty childish for the most part. Herr Ensam didnt like it, and asked why others did... it took 2 pages for someone to actually answer that question. in between he was attacked at various times over his mostly imagined supposed superiorness for seeing through this film and not liking it.
It has made me want to watch the film to see which side I will be on, but I am hedging towards not liking it as those that did (again for the most part, not all so please dont think I am painting you all with the same brush) seemed to be on the offensive from the off set against those that didnt and gave little or no explanation as to why they liked the film other than that those that didnt must be idiots.
those that didnt like the film mentioned bad acting, poor script and plot and unlikely characterisation of the protagonists...
Now I will see if i agree with them, but if not, i will certainly say why i liked it instead of attacking those that didnt.
"All I wanna do is do it"
the guy who attacked the most, jendrake9, http://www.imdb.com/user/ur15565098/boards/profile/
is obviously someone who has some sort of stake in the movie. Who the hell registers an account, uses is solely to viciously attack people who don't like some stupid movie and then never logs on EVER AGAIN?
he should of been called out for what he was and discarded right away.
Thank you. Finally someone who thinks before he writes. As you explained, I only started this thread to find out what people thought was good about the movie, but then people started to believe that I hated everyone who likes it :)
share[deleted]
ok. i have watched this now. I didnt think that it was at all that bad (and i have seen some terrible movies in my time). the acting was more than a little wooden, the script a little "scripted" and lacking in a natural feel to the speeches, and the stand off at the end over the top and unrealistic, but in all, i still thought it was ok. i am not about to recommend it to friends or anything, but at the same time I do think that it does serve a purpose in opening dialogue about the subject in general, and does create a quite convincing everyday enviroment of fear and political spin on keeping us all frightened of what might be out there and who is there trying to "get us"!
spoilers:
but what i didnt like was the un-explained plot holes about exactly who or what the neighbor is and what he does and why he has all the envolopes in his house and where the money came from and what it was for... this could have been cleared up so that we could be assured that he is not a terrorist at all. we dont get this closure and are left to wonder.
I also didnt like that his wife is shot and killed at the end... i dont believe that there was any point to this "twist" at all.
but i did really like that we were able to see the tv through terry's eyes to see that he truely believes that he was correct by inventing a breaking news item on a non excistant channel when in fact all that is being shown is golf.
spoilers end
so, in all, i thought it was interesting, but not worth more than a 6. but having said that, i would much rather have watched this than pirates of the carribean or some such crap!
"All I wanna do is do it"
Spoiler reply to spoiler question
.
.
.
...at least if my interpretation is correct
.
.
.
Terry Allen was insane... all along. The bit with his wife, the neighbor, the plot... it was all in his head. He was watching golf on TV (they wouldn't be showing the news to crazy people.) Did you notice, btw, how the nurse at the end sounded like his wife? Did you notice the use of golf equipment during the movie? How about the ticker running the wrong direction, almost as if he was watching it in a mirror? Like someone commented a few months ago, it was an extension of the paranoia that pervaded this country during the months after 9/11.
this whole thread is a spoiler i think...
I never got the impression that his wife never excisted, but i think that it was quite obvious from the off set that this was a man made to be paranoid in the post 9/11 world by the constant fear mongering of the tv/radio news. I think that he did excist outside of the hospital, and that this wasnt all in his imagination. but the more i think about it, the more i like your thoughts on it, even if i dont totally agree with them. they are plausible, eventhough i think the directors could and should have done more to point us in that direction if that were infact the case.
"All I wanna do is do it"
Thats a nice view of the movie, I never think that far, that it all would be imaginable.
Anyway....
½year to late or so. :-P
Interesting that herr ensam rates it 1, thats probably as those that rates it 10.
Is this the absolute WORST movie ever? Is it SO badly done that u didnt enjoy anything at all? You think that the actors was the worst actors ever? If so, I dont believe you seen many crappy movies(and not these hollywood-blockbusters-goes-stv, they aint half the bad as u might think) there is alot worse, where the actors barely knows their lines, the video is bad shot and it makes no sense. Those should be voted 1. But giving this a 1? Is it not just only because it got so high ranking that u wanted to lower it?
Doesnt this make you a moron just like those morons that vote 10 on everything they like?
What is voting? Who decides what POV the voters have? I maybe think 5/10 is a good vote from me and a 7/10 is a killer movie, while 9/10 is one of the best *beep* ever made. Or maybe I have 7/10 as a okay movie, 8/10 alittle better and 9/10 as a VERY good movie, some even might only have 1 as bad, 10 as good, no more no less. There is no rules how to vote, it would plainly be better if they had; Did u like this movie? YES - NO. Then we could see how many liked it and not. MUCH simpler then this 1-10scale.
Dont look at the rating too much, there is too many people out there that doesnt have the same view of how to vote.
And I know this wont probably be read, because Im a ½year after. But hey! Just watched it and I thougth it was pretty okay 7/10.
Fun that people keep this thread active :)
I can't remember saying that I rated it 1.
Part of the problem with IMDB ranking is that people do rate movies 1 and 10... In terms of a 1-10 rating system how many movies should EVER get either score. Citizen Kane is generally considered the finest film ever made. It has an 8.6 rating. Although I did like Civic Duty it is by no means a 10. Rating it such is just Fan Boy drivel. Similarily rating it a one is kind of idiotic. Ever watched and Ed Wood film? Even some of his terrible movies are better than a 1.
Now on to why I did like the movie.
1) The camera work. I liked that they would use out of focus shots and odd angles. To me this helped to heighten the sense of paranoia.
2) The message. Yes to some of you on this board who seem to disagree, the message of a film is important. Otherwise we would all be watching Cars and Step Up 2. This movie is about the media and how their reporting influences paranoia among people. This is true in modern society as well as in other times (notably the treatment of Asians during WWII). When the paranoid latches on to this propaganda they begin to slide ino their delusions even more.
3) The ending. (Obviously a SPOILER ALERT) I rather liked that his wife died and he is in a mental institution. "Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean that they are not out to get you."
And flaming each other online is rather juvenile and base. Winning an online arguement is like being the coolest kid working at a fast food joint. Who cares?!?!
Fun that people keep this thread active :)Well, some of us just saw the film for the first time a few minutes ago, and... we enjoyed it! Gotta laugh that some in here thought it was pro-Bush!!!??!! Anyway, I'll admit I was getting irritated at how irrational (and SUDDENLY irrational at that) the protagonist became and how quickly he spiralled out-of-control, not to mention too that his wife seemed to have bailed on him way too quickly. Then of course it turns-out he was nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake, and had been all along. Completely missed the obvious clues up-front when he came unglued at the bank teller. Now that I think of it to cover that behavior using the stress of his firing was pretty clever.
---- Spoilers --------
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ok, I read through his thread, and as usual, there's so much nonsense being posted, but some did post some intellegient replies. So, here's my take.
Laugh if you want, but I found this to be neither a bad film, nor a good one. (call it a 5.0). Overall, the premise was good, Krause was excellent, the F.B.I agent, and the police actions were credible. But, the Terry Allen character was just -not- credible, as that character developed. Yes, I too found a few places where I started laughing at his actions; At some point, credibility dictates he would have fell against the wall, bowed his head, and said "man, I sure screwed this up" ... and the story could have taken a completely different turn. It isn't Krauses' fault: It was the plot. Maybe have the last part of the movie go into why it is destructive to oneself to be so paranoid. Do be vigilant, but use common sense and wisdom. To ignore any warning flag is bad, but at some point, as the wife's character portrayed, look in the mirror and see what you are doing and saying. Unfortunately, Terry Allen as a character, was just not believable, and the power this movie could have exuded was lost in straying away from the ommission of him realizing what a racist he had become and capitalizing on that aspect.
Now for my general rant.
Michael Moore sucks, and his movies suck. "Sports Night" was a great comedy series, and a hella lot of stars arose from it!
its a ten to me.
share
it seemed more like a made-for-tv movie.
"sex is like pizza--when its bad its still good"
Why people didn't like this movie?
- No explosions
- No gunfihts and car chases
- Plot was too complicated
- No expensive CGI
- The Middle Eastern guy wasn't the bad guy after all, which must have been a bummer for many americans..
It's a good movie. I think people didn't like it if they were excpecting action. It was a low budget film, and it was very well made considering that. Actors were good, and Peter Krause was great as usual.
"When Al ain't lying, he's the most honorable man you'll ever meet"
Garbage. The acting was poor. The plot was completely ridiculous and anti-climatic. The movie was not intelligent or entertaining. It has nothing to do with disparaging americans or not. There was nowhere near enough reasons to believe the neighbor was a terrorist. The simple idea of building on bush, the media and 911 was pathetic. The Characters were not developed as it became impossible to feel for anyone of them.
Very much like a intellectually insulting (and boring) made for tv movie.
I agree. There is no way this movie deserves 7.6
I would say it deserves about an 8.9 or 9
The only real good review is a paid shill placement who signed up to write the one perfect review with a perfect score and then they never wrote again in 7 years lol
if the film sucked so did the next one.
They fake the reviews of the early crappier films the director made to help bolster the next film as people will check what the director did previously and if the film has a high score they r far more likely to give it a chance but if the previous film is a joke then they will not :?
everything on the internet is increasingly fakes and i can link u to companies paid to fake everything and its all legal :?
“What we have here is a failure to communicate”, Captain